MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410977650 · doi:10.1186/s13024-025-00852-x

CD2AP at the junction of nephropathy and Alzheimer’s disease

2025· review· en· W4410977650 on OpenAlexafffund
Milène Vandal, Mohsen Janmaleki, Isabel M. Rea, Colin Gunn, Sotaro Hirai, Jeff Biernaskie, Justin Chun, Grant R. Gordon, Andréy S. Shaw, Amir Sanati‐Nezhad, Gerald Pfeffer, Frédéric Calon, Minh Dang Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Neurodegeneration · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAlberta Children's HospitalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of CalgaryFondation Brain CanadaAlberta InnovatesKrembil FoundationBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsNeurologyMolecular medicineDiseaseNeuroscienceNephropathyMedicineHuman physiologyBioinformaticsBiologyPathologyInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polymorphisms in the gene encoding CD2-associated protein (CD2AP) are associated with an increased risk for developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). Intriguingly, variants in the gene also cause a pattern of kidney injury termed focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Recent studies have investigated the cell types and mechanisms by which CD2AP gene dosage contributes to the key pathological features of AD. This review summarizes the fundamental roles of CD2AP in mammalian cells and systems, discusses the novel pathogenic mechanisms focused on CD2AP in AD and highlights the necessity of incorporating biological sex in CD2AP research. Finally, the article draws important parallels between kidney and brain physiology based on vascular and molecular organization, links kidney disease to AD, and suggests the existence of a kidney-brain axis in AD centered on CD2AP.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular NeurodegenerationSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207